Environmental Economics

I joined the webinar!

Using internet search volume to improve quota monitoring for the Gulf of Mexico red snapper recreational sector (QUEST Webinar Series)

Join us for a Webinar on October 6th November 3

Date: Thursday, October 6, November 3, 2016 
Time: 1:00 PM - 2:00 PM EDT
Location: SSMC3, Room 3404

Abstract: This presentation will show how Google Internet Search Data can be used to improve recreational quota monitoring. Estimates of recreational fishing harvest are often unavailable until after a fishing season has ended, complicating efforts to stay within the quota. A simple way to monitor quota within the season is to use harvest information from the previous year. This works well when fishery conditions are stable, but is inaccurate when fishery conditions are changing. We develop regression-based models to improve our ability to monitor within-season recreational fishing harvest even when fishery conditions are changing. Our basic model accounts for seasonality, changes in the fishing season, and important events in the fishery. Our extended model uses Google Trends® data on the internet search volume relevant to the fishery of interest, in this case Gulf of Mexico red snapper.

The recreational sector in the Gulf of Mexico overharvested red snapper nearly every year from 2007 to 2013. Our results confirm that data for the previous year work well to predict within-season harvest for a year (2012) where fishery conditions are consistent with historic patterns. However, for a year (2013) of unprecedented harvest and management activity, our regression model using internet search volume for the term “red snapper season” generates within-season estimates that are 27% more accurate than the basic model without the internet search information and 29% more accurate than the prediction based on the previous year. More accurate estimates of within-season harvest will increase the likelihood that the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery can stay within quota. Our approach using internet search volume might have the potential to improve quota management in other fisheries where conditions change year-to-year.

Presenter: Dr. David Carter (NOAA Southeast Fisheries Science Center)

 

Well, this throws a wrench in Hotelling's Rule*

Science is awesome:

Einstein once boldly claimed that the Laws of Thermodynamics were the only physical theory of the universe that will 'never be overthrown'.

That all changed late last month, when scientists from the Argonne National Laboratory at the University of Chicago found a loophole in the system - one that allows them to break the second law of thermodynamics.

The finding has huge implications for our understanding of the universe, not least because it presents us with a chance to one day create perpetual motion machines.

*Not really.  Back in 2013 I wrote about Hotelling's Rule in it's simplest form: 

For a non-renewable, exhaustible resource with completely known stock, no discoveries possible, no alternatives, no recycling, private ownership and constant costs of extraction, the price of the resource will increase at the interest rate over time.

If these scientists are right (and Einstein was wrong...idiot), then energy might be infinitely renewable...at least for a little while...

The ANL researchers claim that their loophole could bypass this long-held rule of the universe, allowing the accelerating march of entropy to go in the opposite direction.

This would only be on a small, local scale, and for short periods of time.

...and energy prices would fall to zero.

 

 

There are more anti-candidate economists than economists who endorse in this presidential election relative to 2012

Catherine Rampell (link):

Yesterday saw the release of a letter, signed by 370 economists, denouncing Donald Trump and his tendency to promote “magical thinking and conspiracy theories over sober assessments of feasible economic policy options.” Several weeks earlier, a group of 305 economists had signed a separate letter denouncing Hillary Clinton’s “ill-advised economic agenda.”

I was curious about the overlap between these lists, and economists’ endorsements from prior elections. For example, how many of the 673 economists who endorsed Mitt Romney in 2012 were now turning against the 2016 Republican nominee?

A few findings:

• Of the 673 economists who signed a letter endorsing Romney in 2012, about 200 have signed onto the anti-Clinton letter this time around.

• Of the 673 economists who endorsed Romney in 2012, exactly one signed yesterday’s anti-Trump letter. That is Mario Rizzo, of New York University.

• In a separate letter signed only by Nobel laureates, however, Robert Lucas Jr. of the University of Chicago affirmatively endorsed Hillary Clinton; he had signed the pro-Romney letter in 2012. In August, the Wall Street Journal also reported on the candidate preferences of previous Council of Economic Advisers members. Several of those who said they oppose Trump had previously signed the 2012 pro-Romney letter (Martin Feldstein, William Poole, Jerry Jordan, Greg Mankiw). Thanks to readers who pointed out these omissions who hadn’t been on the anti-Trump letter. Let me know if there are other prominent pro-Romney/anti-Trump names I’ve missed, and I’ll continue to update the post.

• There is also exactly one person who signed both the anti-Trump letter and the anti-Clinton letter this year. That is also Mario Rizzo, of New York University. ...

By the way, I’ve so far been unable to find a similar, comprehensive list of economists endorsing Barack Obama in 2012, so am unable to see how many Obama endorsers signed either the anti-Trump or anti-Clinton letters. ...

These results seem consistent with the motivations of many voters. Are you more anti-Trump or anti-Clinton?